Providing history and transaction volume information of a content source to users

ABSTRACT

A computer-implemented system and method for providing a legitimacy rating of a content source are provided. A request for a document is received. An electronic document associated with a content source is passed by a document provider in response to the request. A legitimacy rating of the content source is passed. Examples of legitimacy rating information include, for example, a history rating of the content source based on the length of time the document provider has published documents associated with the content source and a transaction volume rating of the content source based on the number of electronic documents associated with the content source that are passed by the document provider.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to a system and method for providing alegitimacy rating of a content source associated with a document such asan advertisement.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

With the advent of the Internet, a seemingly limitless variety ofcontent has become available to users. Countless websites provideinformation about countless subjects and sell a myriad of products toend users. The amount of information and consumer items accessible to auser appears to be limited only by the user's download speed, time,pocket book, and imagination. While the freedom to publish content andreach users over the Internet has brought forth an unprecedented amountof content, the wide variety of such content has a correspondingly widerange of quality and reliability. While many websites provide reliableinformation or sell quality products at competitive prices, many othersprovide inaccurate information, intentionally defraud users, or sellillegal wares.

In addition to harming users, disreputable content providers can alsoharm otherwise innocent referring websites by association. For instance,if one website refers a user to a disreputable site that harms the user,the bad experience may degrade the user's trust in the otherwiseinnocent referring site. Unfortunately, it is practicably impossible tomonitor the quality of such linked sites, especially for search enginesthat link to a large number of websites (e.g., by publishingkeyword-triggered advertisements that link to one of many advertiserwebsites).

It is also difficult or impossible for users to discern between websitesand advertisements from legitimate business operations with proven trackrecords and those from fly-by-night operations that intend to acquireusers' credit card numbers for nefarious purposes. Competent graphicartists can make a reputable-looking document, and there are fewthird-party resources to tell users the difference. The sheer number ofwebsites on the Internet make it difficult for any independent reviewingentity to evaluate even a fraction of the existing websites, and thecost of labor for such an undertaking would be similarly prohibitive.Some rating entities such as Consumer Reports provide independentratings of companies that advertise on the Internet, but their ratingsbarely cover a fraction of Internet sellers. While ratings of manycontent providers exist somewhere in cyberspace, their lack ofcentralization can make them difficult to find, and the reliability ofeach disparate rating entity can only be verified by yet another appealto another independent rating entity.

Other rating websites such as www.resellerratings.com provide userratings about a variety of etailers. However, user ratings exist onlyfor those sites that happen to be rated by one or more users, and thequality of the ratings are only as truthful and reliable as theanonymous users who post them. Another danger with most user ratings isthat disreputable sites can boost their ratings by providing falselypositive ratings as a fake user.

These and other drawbacks exist with current systems and methods.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

Accordingly, various embodiments of the present invention may bedirected to a computer-implemented system and method for providing alegitimacy rating of a content source. A request for a document isreceived. An electronic document associated with a content source ispassed by a document provider in response to the request. A legitimacyrating of the content source is passed. Examples of legitimacy ratinginformation include, for example, a history rating of the content sourcebased on the length of time the document provider has publisheddocuments associated with the content source and a transaction volumerating of the content source based on the number of electronic documentsassociated with the content source that are passed by the documentprovider.

According to another embodiment, a computer-implemented system forproviding a legitimacy rating of a content source is provided. An inputdevice receives a request for a document. An output device passes anelectronic document associated with a content source by a documentprovider in response to the request. The output device also provides alegitimacy rating of the content source. Examples of legitimacy ratinginformation include, for example, a history rating of the content sourcebased on the length of time the document provider has publisheddocuments associated with the content source and a transaction volumerating of the content source based on the number of electronic documentsassociated with the content source that are passed by the documentprovider. A processor determines the legitimacy rating of the contentsource based on at least one of transaction and history informationassociated with the content source.

According to another embodiment, a computer-implemented method forproviding a legitimacy rating of a content source is provided. A requestfor a document associated with a criteria is received from a user. Anelectronic advertisement is selected based on a relevance to thecriteria, wherein the electronic advertisement is associated with anadvertiser. The electronic advertisement is passed to the user by adocument provider in response to the request. A legitimacy rating of theadvertiser is provided to the user. The legitimacy rating comprises atleast one of a history rating of the advertiser based on the length oftime the document provider has published electronic advertisementsassociated with the advertiser and a transaction volume rating of theadvertiser based on the number of electronic advertisements associatedwith the advertiser that are passed to users by the document provider.

According to another embodiment, a system for providing a legitimacyrating of a content source is provided. An input device receives from auser a request for a document associated with a criteria. A processorselects an electronic advertisement based on a relevance to thecriteria, wherein the electronic advertisement is associated with anadvertiser. An output device passes the electronic advertisement fromthe document provider to the user in response to the request. The outputdevice also provides to the user a legitimacy rating of the advertiser.The legitimacy rating comprises at least one of: a history rating of theadvertiser based on the length of time the document provider haspublished electronic advertisements associated with the advertiser; anda transaction volume rating of the advertiser based on the number ofelectronic advertisements associated with the advertiser that are passedto users by the document provider.

According to another embodiment, a computer-implemented method forproviding a legitimacy rating of a content source is provided. A requestfor a document associated with a concept is received from a user. Anelectronic document associated with a content source is selected basedon a relevance to the concept. A legitimacy rating of the content sourceis determined. The legitimacy rating comprises at least one of a historyrating of the content source based on the length of time the documentprovider has published documents associated with the content source anda transaction volume rating of the content source based on the number ofelectronic documents associated with the content source that are passedto users by the document provider. The electronic document and thelegitimacy rating are passed to the user together in a singletransmission in response to the request.

According to another embodiment, a system for providing a legitimacyrating of a content source is provided. An input device receives from auser a request for a document associated with a concept. A selectionprocessor of a document provider selects an electronic documentassociated with a content source based on a relevance to the concept. Alegitimacy rating processor determines a legitimacy rating of thecontent source. The legitimacy rating comprises at least one of: ahistory rating of the content source based on the length of time thedocument provider has published documents associated with the contentsource; and a transaction volume rating of the content source based onthe number of electronic documents associated with the content sourcethat are passed to users by the document provider. An output devicepasses the electronic document and the legitimacy rating together in asingle transmission to the user in response to the request.

Other embodiments are also within the scope of the invention.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 depicts a system for providing a legitimacy rating of a contentsource according to an embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 2 depicts a networked environment for operation of a system forproviding a legitimacy rating according to an embodiment of theinvention.

FIG. 3 depicts a flow chart illustrating an exemplary method forproviding a legitimacy rating according to an embodiment of theinvention.

FIG. 4 depicts an exemplary web page containing a document comprisinglegitimacy rating information according to an embodiment of theinvention.

FIGS. 5A and 5B depict an exemplary document for which legitimacy ratinginformation may be provided according to an embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 6 depicts an exemplary detailed view of a legitimacy ratingaccording to an embodiment of the invention.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF EXEMPLARY EMBODIMENTS

The embodiments described herein solve many problems with existingsystems and methods. One problem is the lack of reliable informationabout content providers (also called content sources) who providecontent that is published on network sites. Content providers such asadvertisers may potentially harm users by selling them defectiveproducts or stealing their credit card information. Thus, users needeasily accessible and reliable information about the legitimacy of suchcontent providers.

According to various embodiments of the invention, a publisher such as aserver or other content provider may provide legitimacy informationabout various other content sources, such as information about eachcontent source's history and transaction volume with the publisher. Insome embodiments, the publisher may provide this information whenever itpublishes documents such as advertisements associated with the contentsource. For instance, a publisher of Internet search results and relatedadvertisements may include legitimacy information about each advertiserat the bottom of each advertisement.

In this way, users may easily acquire unbiased factual information aboutcontent sources such as advertising businesses. This information maybetter equip users to decide whether to engage in relationships withcontent providers, such as by purchasing their products or relying ontheir published information. For instance, a user viewing advertisementsof a variety of companies advertising automobile parts may choose topurchase from the company who has had the longest relationship with thepublisher.

Another advantage of various embodiments described herein is that, tothe extent that legitimacy information affects user behavior such aspurchasing decisions, advertisers and other content sources will have anextra incentive to achieve and maintain a positive legitimacy rating.For instance, advertisers may seek to have a long relationship with thepublisher (and accordingly achieve a stronger history rating) and alsoincrease their transaction volume, e.g., by bidding higher amounts forInternet search keywords to increase the likelihood that theiradvertisements are displayed and selected by users. In some embodiments,the publisher may enable users to rate their experiences with contentproviders and publish the user rating information as part of thelegitimacy information.

As used herein, the term “document” and “electronic document” mayencompass one or more advertisements, content pages (e.g., web pages),search results, emails, applications, IM messages, audio content orfiles, video content or files, other files, other data or applicationsthat may reside on one or several (e.g., a network) of computer systems,or other definable concepts or content. Although an advertisement isoften used herein as an exemplary document, it should be understood thatany document may be used.

This application is related to the technology described in U.S.application Ser. No. 10/841,834 entitled “System and Method for RatingDocuments Comprising an Image,” the disclosure of which is incorporatedherein by reference in its entirety.

Overview and System Illustration

FIGS. 1 and 2 depict an exemplary system 100 for providing a legitimacyrating of a content source 12 according to an embodiment of theinvention. The system may comprise: a server 2, one or more providers 8,one or more content sources 12, one or more end users 10, and one ormore databases 50 operatively connected to server 2.

Content sources 12, providers 8, and end users 10 may communicate withone or more servers 2 via electronic communication, including Internetcommunications. Content sources 12, providers 8, and end users 10 mayinclude or have access to one or more servers 2 for providingfunctionality associated with electronic documents. Information that maybe communicated between and among server 2, providers 8, content sources12, and end users 10 may include any one or more of the following:document information, content rating information, volume information,history information, provider information, or other information.

System 100 may enable server 2 to request, receive, and/or processrating information associated with a content source 12 and/or a document(e.g., a document associated with a content source 12).

As shown in FIG. 1, one or more content sources 12 may provide contentsuch as one or more documents to a server 2. Server 2 may also createdocuments, e.g., based on content received from content sources 12.

Providers 8 may provide documents to one or more end users 10 a-10 n.Providers 8 may comprise a content provider, search engine or otherentity that makes available information, services, and/or products overan electronic network, such as the Internet. A provider 8 may includeone or more of the following, for example: an advertisement listingsprovider, a content provider, a website host, a server 2, any otherentity that provides electronic documents to users or other entities, orany other provider of content. A provider 8 may also be a content source12.

Documents received by (or created by) server 2 may be passed to and fromusers 10 directly or indirectly via providers 8. For instance, aprovider 8 and/or end user 10 may request a document. The requestor maytransmit a signal to a server 2 that requests a document such as a webpage, and that signal may be interpreted as a request for a document.For instance, user 10 may submit a search query comprising a keyword.The server 2 may pass one or more documents to the user 10 (or provider8) based on the keyword or other criteria. The user 10 may receive thedocument and then provide rating information about the content source 12associated with the document (and/or the document itself) to the server2.

Content sources 12 may comprise any source of content, such as a server,provider, document listings provider, or any other entity that causes adocument to be created or passed to another party. For instance, whileone party may provide a document such as an advertisement to server 2for distribution to users 10 under instructions from (or as a directresult of a relationship with) a second party, both the first and secondparties may be considered content sources for purposes of variousembodiments. In some embodiments, content source 12 may comprise anadvertisement listings provider.

It should be understood that the following entities may be distinctentities: the entity that creates an advertisement (or other document);the entity that sends the created advertisement to the server 2; theentity that directs the server 2 to provide the advertisement to users;the entity that controls the company or website linked to or featured inthe advertisement (or that is otherwise the subject of the ad or theentity controlling the subject of the ad); the entity that sells theadvertised product to users; the entity that receives money from usersfor an advertised product; and the entity that pays the server 2 (or anentity associated with the server 2) for providing the advertisement tousers. However, it should be appreciated that for purposes of variousembodiments, these various entities may be collectively considered asingle content source.

Content source 12 may provide documents to server 2, or server 2 may“pull” or retrieve documents or other content from content sources 12.For instance, the content source 12 may provide an advertisement toserver 2 so that the server 2 may then provide the advertisement to oneor more content providers 8 that may provide the ad to one or more endusers 10. (It should be appreciated that in some embodiments, server 2or content source 12 may provide the ad directly to the end user 10.)Content sources 12 may include any content creator or content provider8, such as an advertisement listings provider or server 2.

The server 2 may comprise any server, hub, central processor, provider,search engine, or other entity in a network. Although a single server 2is depicted, it should be appreciated that multiple servers 2 may beprovided and that such multiple servers may share data and operationaltasks to achieve efficiency and operation of the functions describedherein.

The server 2 may comprise one or more modules 20-36 to process content,legitimacy information (e.g., ratings), and other data.

Volume module 20 may receive and process volume information, includingany information related to the number or amount of documents (or othercontent) associated with a content source 12, such as an advertisementlistings provider. Volume module 20 may receive and process informationabout one or more of the following, for example: the publication of adocument associated with a content source 12, e.g., by server 2; a user10 selection of a document associated with a content source 12, such asa document published by server 2; a user 10 purchase from a contentsource 12 (including an entity associated with the content source 12),such as a purchase made after selecting a document associated with thecontent source 12; the number of documents received at (or created by)the server 2 that are associated with a particular content source 12.For instance, volume module 20 may use a counting or aggregatingfunction to monitor the number of times a particular advertisement isselected in order to determine the total number of times it is selected.

Volume module 20 may communicate with providers 8, users 10, and contentsources 12 to acquire such information. Volume information may be storedin volume database 58.

History module 22 may receive and process history information. Historyinformation may comprise any information related to one or more of thefollowing, for example: the length of time a content source 12 hasprovided content to the server 2 (or otherwise provided content); thelength of time the server 2 has distributed content related to thecontent source 12; the length of time a content source 12 has been inbusiness; the length of time a content source 12 has been associatedwith a particular country or geographical location; the amount of timethat passed before a particular document (or type of document)associated with a content source 12 was published or selected by users acertain number of times (e.g., the time it took for the first 1000clicks on an advertiser's ad or ad campaign); or other historicalinformation related to the content source 12 and its associateddocuments. History module 22 may communicate with providers 8, contentsources 12, users 10, and third party entities to acquire suchinformation.

Feedback module 24 may receive and process user feedback information,e.g., information received via a feedback link in a document such as anadvertisement (e.g., as shown in FIGS. 5A and 5B).

User rating module 26 may receive and process content ratings receivedfrom end users and other evaluators. User ratings and user ratingrequests may be communicated via traditional mail, email, or othermethods. For instance, a document associated with a content source 12may include a feedback link for providing a user rating. The feedbacklink may link the user to a feedback document that requests evaluationof specific features of the document or its associated content source12, such as the quality of the user's experience of the content source12, the truthfulness and reliability of the content source 12, theappropriateness of content of the content source 12, the dollar amountthe user 10 has spent on products provided by the content source 12, thelength of time the user 10 has known about or had a relationship withthe content source 12, and other criteria. The end user 10 or otherevaluator of content sources may then pass the user rating informationto the server 2, e.g., by completing a feedback document hosted on theserver 2 site. The user rating module 26 may then electronically processthe rating information.

The server 2 may also use other methods to request a user 10 to provideinformation about an advertiser (or other content source 12) associatedwith a particular document such as an advertisement.

Source comparison module 28 may process content source 12 information inorder to associate one or more content sources 12 with one or more othercontent sources 12. Associations may be based on similarities betweenand among the content sources 12.

For instance, for content sources 12 that are advertisers who bid onspecific keywords wherein the highest bidder will have their adsdisplayed in a highest position on a search result page when thosekeywords are submitted to an Internet search engine, source comparisonmodule 28 may associate together the content sources 12 that bid on thesame keywords or keywords that are related (e.g., closely related) insemantic space. In other words, source comparison module 28 mayassociate together all the advertisers 12 who bid on the phrase“cellular phone,” and it may also include in such association all theadvertisers who bid on the words “mobile phone,” “wireless,” and“wireless handset”.

Source comparison module 28 may also determine a degree of associationbetween a plurality of content sources 12. For instance, two advertiserswho bid on the exact phrase “cellular phone” may have a correlationfactor of 1.0, while these advertisers may have a correlation factor of0.85 to those advertisers who bid only on “wireless handset,” acorrelation factor of 0.95 to those who bid on both “cellular phone” and“wireless,” and a correlation factor of 0.5 to those advertisers who bidon “wireless” and “phone antenna.” Thus, the degree of association (orcorrelation factor or other metric) may be based on the degree ofassociation between keywords (from keyword bids) in semantic space.

The correlation metric may also be based on an advertiser's actual bid(or relative bid) on a keyword. For instance, advertisers who bid $0.50on the keyword “wireless” may have an increased correlation factor. Insome embodiments, advertisers who each bid on several different keywordsmay have a higher degree of association to the extent that their highestbids were for the same or similar words (and/or their next highest bidswere for similar words, and/or the third highest keyword bids, etc.).

It should be appreciated that a single content source 12 such as anadvertiser may effectively have several different ratings andcorrelations. In some embodiments, an advertiser 12 or other contentsource 12 may bid on keywords, wherein the ad will be selected fordisplay to a user on a search result page based on the amount of theirbid and the degree of association between their keyword and the user'ssearch query. An advertiser with advertisements for a variety ofcompletely different products (each having different concept or keywordmonetary value bids) may have separate ratings for each set of keywordbids. Thus, in some embodiments, a single content source 12 may beeffectively treated as several different content sources 12, each withseparate ratings. For instance, the volume ratings for each distinct“entity” of the single content source 12 may be completely different,and each “entity” may be associated with a different set of othercontent sources 12. However, it should be noted that some of the historyinformation for the various “entities” of a single content source 12 maybe the same, since some time measurements may be based on the length oftime the server 2 has had a relationship with the content source 12(which may be considered the same (or different) for all distinct“entities”).

Other factors that may be taken into consideration in determining anassociation between different content sources 12 include, for example,one or more of the following factors in regard to each content source12: geography (e.g., location of headquarters of an advertiser);industry (e.g., the industry of an advertiser as specified by theadvertiser); language (e.g., English-language content may bedistinguished from Spanish-language content); number of advertisements;history information (e.g., length of time an advertiser has been inbusiness or length of time the server 2 has published the contentprovider's content); volume information (e.g., the number of adspublished by the server 2); type of content provided by the contentsource (e.g., image ad providers may be treated differently from text adproviders and pop-up providers); content (e.g., the words and imagescomprised in an advertisement, such that content providers 12 with textads having similar language or image ads having similar language mayhave an increased correlation); and other factors.

Correlation factors or other metrics based on a degree of associationbetween content sources may be used by the rating aggregation module 30to compare a particular content source 12 to “related” content sources.

Rating aggregation module 30 may aggregate or otherwise process ratinginformation for one or more content sources 12 and determine aggregatevolume, history, and user ratings for each content source 12.

It should be appreciated that ratings may be based on absolute ratingsas well as normalized ratings. For instance, while a highest score in aparticular category such as transaction volume may be $750,271, thisamount may be normalized as 100%, 10, or 1.0 (among othernormalizations). It should also be appreciated that aggregate ratingsmay use means, modes, medians, standard deviations, and otherstatistical comparison tools and measurements.

An aggregate rating for a particular content source 12 may be based onrating information for the particular content source 12 as well asratings of other content sources 12 related to the particular contentsource 12 (e.g., content sources determined to be related by the sourcecomparison module 28). For instance, a content source rating may bebased on the average content source rating of related content sources.Any comparisons to related content sources may be based on a weightedaverage calculated based on a degree of correlation between the contentsource 12 a in question and each of the comparison content sources 12b-n.

The rating aggregation module 30 may determine an aggregate rating for acontent provider by processing ratings created by rating modules 24, 26,30. The rating aggregation module 30 may use any aggregation algorithmor methodology to determine aggregate ratings. For instance, theaggregation may be a total score, a mean, a mode, a median, a stepfunction, a 75^(th) (or other) percentile score, or any other measurethat relates to the data considered. The algorithm may consider one ormore of the following, for example: volume information, historyinformation, user ratings, document performance data (such as clickthrough rate and frequency of display), and other information relevantto the end users (or other evaluators of content or content providers),document, document content, or aggregation.

An aggregate rating may comprise one or more distinct numerical scores(e.g., for different subject areas like volume and history). Ratings mayalso comprise one or more binary scores (such as yes/no orflag/no-flag). The numerical scores may comprise one or more measures ofa total rating in a particular area, and the numerical scores may alsoindicate other information about the various ratings aggregated. Forinstance, a score may comprise a mean in addition to a standarddeviation of the mean. The aggregate rating may also comprise (or becomputed using) a multidimensional vector.

Content module 32 may receive and process content received from contentsources 12. Content module 32 may also create documents based on contentreceived from content sources 12. For instance, content module mayreceive ads from advertisers and/or create ads based on content receivedfrom advertisers.

Content module 32 may store such received and/or created documents andother content in content database 52. The ads or other documentsreceived or created by content module 32 may be passed to providers 8and end users 10.

Document selection module 34 may select one or more documents and passthem to providers 8 and/or end users 10. Document selection module 34may select and provide such documents in response to a request from aprovider 8, end user 10, or other entity. For instance, documentselection module 34 may select a document in response to a keywordsearch query from a user 10.

Document selection module 34 may select a document from the contentdatabase 52. For instance, document selection module 34 may select adocument provided by a content source 12 or created by server 2, and/orit may select (and/or create) one or more search results, wherein eachsearch result is associated with a content source such as a website. Thedocument may be selected based on one or more of the following, forexample: its relevance to a criteria, such as a keyword provided in asearch query; an amount of a bid on one or more keywords; user ratinginformation; legitimacy information; or other criteria. For instance,document selection module 34 may receive a search query from a user 10and provide a plurality of search result and advertisement documents ona website document, which it may then pass to the user 10.

Document selection module 34 may pass documents created or selected bythe module 34 to users 10 and providers 8. Document selection module 34may also pass legitimacy information associated with the document(and/or associated with a content provider associated with thedocument), such as information created by volume module 20, historymodule 22, user rating module 26, and rating aggregation module 30. Thelegitimacy information may be passed together with the document. Forinstance, the legitimacy information may added to the document (e.g., atthe bottom of the document or as a visible attachment to the document).The legitimacy information may also be embedded in code associated withthe document, such that the information is not displayed with thedocument but may be accessed by the user via alternate means, such as byright-clicking on the document (or an icon associated with the document)or mousing over the document (or otherwise selecting the document or alink or other entity associated with the document).

It should be understood that for search result documents, documentselection module 34 may identify legitimacy information based on a linkassociated with the search result document. For instance, ifwww.movies.com is a search result for the query “best movies of 2004,”document selection module 34 may access database 50 to determine if anylegitimacy information exists for www.movies.com. If it does, it mayprovide the legitimacy information to a user as described herein.

Other module(s) 36 may accomplish other functions related to providingvolume and history information.

A database 50 coupled to the server 2 may include one or more databases50-66. The server 2 and its modules 20-36 may store and accessinformation stored in the database(s) 50-66. Databases 52-66 maycomprise portions of a single database 50. It should be appreciated thatthe databases 50-66 may or may not be physically distinct.

Content database 52 may store content such as documents and othercontent received from content sources 12 and documents created by server2. The content may be provided to users 10 and providers 8 by server 2,e.g., when a user 10 requests a document by submitting a keyword at asearch engine. The documents may be associated with their originatingcontent sources 12, e.g., the content source 12 that provided thedocument or provided instructions or content giving rise to thedocument. For instance, a content source 12 may provide instructions tothe server 2 to create a document. A document created by the server 2 inresponse to these instructions may be associated with that contentsource 12.

Source comparison database 54 may store information about one or morecontent sources 12, including content source 12 correlation andassociation information. For instance, content source database may storeinformation indicating which content sources 12 b-n are similar to aparticular content source 12 a, and the degree of similarity between andamong the content sources 12 a-n along a plurality of metrics. Inparticular, source comparison database 54 may store information used orcreated by source comparison module 28.

Volume database 56 may store volume information for one or more contentsources 12, including volume information received from the volume module20. Volume rating information may comprise any transaction or otherinformation that may be used by volume rating module 24 in determiningvolume rating information. For instance, volume database 56 may storenumerical information relating to the number of occurrences of aparticular event, such as: a user selection of a content source's 12document; an accumulated amount of money such as the amount paid by aparticular content source to the server 2 (or an entity associated withthe server 2) over the course of a year or the lifetime of theirrelationship; or another amount.

History database 58 may store history information for one or morecontent sources 12, including history information received from thehistory module 22. History information may comprise any information thatmay be used to determine a time or length of time, or other informationthat may be used by the history rating module 26 in determining historyrating information. For instance, the first time a user 10 selects adocument provided by a particular content source 12, information aboutthis event may be recorded in the history database 58. This informationmay include: the identity of the content source; the identity of theselected document; keywords associated with the document (includingkeyword bids by the content source as well as keywords entered by theuser for a search query, if any); the date and time of the selection;and other information concerning the selection. Similar information maybe stored for other events.

User rating database 60 may store user rating information, such asratings concerning the quality of a content source 12 and other ratinginformation used or created by user rating module 26 and ratingaggregation module 30. For instance, when a rating of a content source12 is received by server 2, the content of the rating may be storedhere.

Volume rating database 62 may store volume rating information, includinginformation used and created by volume rating module 24 and ratingaggregation module 30.

History rating database 64 may store history rating information,including information used and created by history rating module 26 andrating aggregation module 30.

An aggregate rating database 48 may store aggregate ratings. Eachaggregate rating may include ratings across a variety of criteria.

Other database(s) 54 may store other information relating to theproviders 8, end users 10, content sources 12, server 2, volumeinformation, history information, ratings, and aggregate ratings, andother content.

Illustrative System Network Environment

FIG. 2 depicts a networked environment for operation of a system forproviding a legitimacy rating according to an embodiment of theinvention. In such an environment, content sources 12 and providers 8may connect over a network 14, 15 to a server 2 (e.g., using a securehttps connection) to provide documents and rating information (e.g.,legitimacy rating information) to server 2 and to receive documents andrating request information from server 2. The server 2 may store thedocument and rating information in a database 50. The server 2 maydistribute the documents through various forums or feeds, includingdirect distribution in print media, providing the documents on one ormore web sites affiliated with the server 2 and through providers 8. Itshould be noted that providers may comprise syndication partners of theserver 2 (e.g., connected over network 14 or 15 depending on securitydesired), content systems (e.g., with associated content databases) andsearch engine systems operated by the server 2 or provider(s) 8.

Through these various forums, the documents provided to the providers 8may be included in pages (or other documents) displayed to end-users 10(often called an impression).

Each of server 2, providers 8, and content sources 12 may comprisecomputerized systems that include one or more of the following systems,for example: a web server 2, a database server 2, proxy server 2,network balancing mechanisms and systems, and various softwarecomponents that enable the system to operate on the Internet or othernetwork type system. Additionally, networks 14 and 15, although depictedas http networks, may comprise other networks such as private lines,intranets, or any other network. In an exemplary embodiment, theconnection between a content source 12 such as an advertisement providerand server 2 (and other connections such as between a provider 8 andserver 2) may comprise secure network connections to insure that data isnot subject to attack or corruption by any hacker or other third party.In addition, whereas two content sources 12 are depicted, it should beappreciated that one or more content sources 12 may be provided in thenetwork. Similarly, although one database 50 is depicted, it should beappreciated that multiple database 50 may be provided and that suchdatabase 50 may be connected to the server 2 via any type of networkconnection, including a distributed database server 2 architecture.

Similarly, provider 8 a may comprise any number of such systemsconnected to the server 2 via any type of network, including an http orhttps network. Provider 8 may comprise a system such as server 2 thatprovides functionality for enabling connection over the Internet orother network protocols. Providers 8 may comprise any system thatdistributes content such as advertising to end-users 10.

End users 10 may comprise any user (such as users connected to theInternet) and may comprise computerized systems that enable thatconnection through any of various types of networks, including throughInternet service providers, cable companies, and any other method ofaccessing data on the Internet.

Illustrative Process

FIG. 3 depicts a flow chart illustrating an exemplary method fordisclosing a legitimacy rating according to an embodiment of theinvention. The methods described herein may be implemented by thesystems described in FIGS. 1 and 2.

In block 300, content may be received from a content provider. Thecontent may be received from a document provider such as a server. Forinstance, an advertisement or request to produce an advertisement may bereceived from an advertiser or advertiser agent. Alternately or inaddition, the server 2 may generate one or more documents. For instance,a content source may provide instructions to the server 2 to generate anadvertisement for the content source.

In block 310, one or more documents associated with the content providermay be provided to users. They may be provided to users by a documentprovider, such as a server. For instance, a plurality of different adsassociated with a particular advertiser may be passed to a plurality ofdifferent users over time.

In block 320, transaction and/or history information associated with thecontent provider may be tracked, e.g., by the server. For instance, theserver may monitor how many times it publishes a document that isassociated with the content provider. The server may also monitor howmany times a user selects a document associated with a content providersuch as an advertiser, e.g., by clicking an advertisement of theadvertiser. The server may also store the date of any of theseoccurrences.

For example, the server may determine the number of times a particularadvertisement associated with an advertiser has been provided to (orselected by) users. It may also determine the total number of times anyadvertisements associated with the advertiser have been provided to (orselected by) users. Using cookies, it may also monitor the number oftimes those users made purchases after selecting a particular document.

In block 330, one or more user ratings associated with content providers(such as the content provider of 320) may be received, e.g., by theserver. For instance, an end user or other evaluator may elect toprovide rating information, e.g., by clicking on a feedback link in thedocument (e.g., as shown in FIGS. 5A and 5B). The feedback link maydirect the evaluator to a site (or other location in cyberspace) wherethe evaluator may provide rating information. For instance, the feedbacklink may direct the evaluator to a site which prompts the evaluator forvarious rating information (see, e.g., FIG. 7). Rating information maybe input at the prompts.

For instance, users may leave feedback about their experience with aparticular content provider associated with an advertisement or otherdocument provided by the server. Some users might complain about thecontent provider. For instance, some users may indicate that aparticular advertiser sold a falsely advertised product and/orovercharged them for a purchase. Any variety of consumer complaints arecontemplated herein.

Other users may leave feedback indicating positive experiences with acontent provider, such as an indication that information provided by thecontent provider was accurate and reliable, or that an advertiserprocessed an order quickly and had good customer server.

Feedback information and the methods of obtaining it may comprise anyfeedback information from users or other parties as discussed in U.S.application Ser. No. 10/841,834 entitled “System and Method for RatingDocuments Comprising an Image,” the disclosure of which is incorporatedherein by reference in its entirety.

In block 340, legitimacy rating information and/or user ratinginformation may be aggregated or otherwise processed, e.g., by theserver.

For instance, the server may determine aggregate user and/or legitimacyratings for a particular advertiser or other content provider. Forinstance, mean, median, and mode rating values of a particular contentprovider may be compared to those of other content providers, such asall or a subset of content providers who provide content to the server,to determine an aggregate rating for that content provider.

One relevant subset of content providers for comparison may comprisecontent providers who have a relevance or similarity to the particularcontent provider. For instance, an advertiser who advertises cars may becompared to others advertisers who advertise cars or other advertisersin the automobile industry. A content provider who has had arelationship with the server for two years may be compared to othercontent providers who have had relationships with the server for 2 years(or more or less). An advertiser may be compared to other advertiserswho have a similar transaction volume. In other embodiments, advertiserswho bid on one or more identical or similar keywords may be compared toone another.

For instance, the server may determine that advertisements from oneparticular advertiser were selected by users 300 times over the courseof a year, while advertisements from other comparable advertisers wereselected by users an average of 500 times for each advertiser, whereinthe standard deviation is 100 and the maximum is 1500. The server mayuse statistical methods to determine a metric for measuring eachadvertiser's selection score on a scale of 1-10, and it may determinethat the particular advertiser earned a 2.8 rating.

Using similar methods, the server may determine that an advertiser whohas had a relationship with the document provider for 5 years (comparedto an average of 8 years for similarly situated advertisers) has historyrating of 6.5/10.

Similarly, the server may determine that an advertiser who has paid$75,000 to the server (or an associated entity) for publishing itsadvertisements to users (compared to $40,000 average) has anadvertisement payment rating of 9.1/10.

In block 350, a request for a document associated with a concept may bereceived from a user, e.g., by the publisher. For instance, a user mayenter a search query such as “best movies of 2004” at a search enginewebsite such as Google™ to request documents associated with the query.

In block 360, one or more documents associated with the concept may bepassed to the user. For instance, a list of search results andadvertisements may be provided on a search result page (e.g., as shownin FIG. 4), wherein each search result and advertisement is related to asearch query provided by a user. Each document may be associated with acontent source; for instance, a merchant may be associated with eachadvertisement, and a company may be associated with each website linkedin a search result.

The documents may comprise legitimacy information and user ratinginformation. For instance, the documents may comprise the documentsshown in FIGS. 5A and 5B. Thus, it should be appreciated that theactions of block 360 (passing document to user) may be combined with theactions of block 380 (passing legitimacy rating to user) if legitimacyinformation is comprised in the document.

In block 370, a request for legitimacy information (or additionallegitimacy information) associated with a document (or content provider)may be requested by the user. If the provided document already containsor shows legitimacy information, this action may comprise requestingadditional legitimacy information, such as by clicking a link to morelegitimacy information. It should be understood that any of a variety ofactions may be considered a request for a legitimacy rating. In someembodiments, a user may mouse over or otherwise select a particulardocument and thereby cause legitimacy information to appear in thedocument or in another document.

In block 380, a legitimacy rating of a document provider (or othercontent source) may be provided to a user, e.g., by the server. Thelegitimacy information provided may comprise additional legitimacyinformation if legitimacy information was already displayed to the user.The legitimacy rating may comprise any legitimacy information describedabove, such as information relating to the length of time the contentprovider has provided documents to the server 2 or the number of timesusers have selected the content source's documents. The legitimacyinformation may also comprise any user ratings and aggregate ratings asdescribed herein, such as aggregate user ratings, aggregate historyrating information, and aggregate volume rating information. Theaggregate ratings may also comprise a general approval or disapprovalbased on that information. Legitimacy information may also comprise userrating information.

Legitimacy information may be provided automatically or in response to arequest from the user (e.g., as indicated in block 370). For instance,each document may comprise legitimacy rating as part of the document,such as in advertisement 430. In other embodiments, legitimacyinformation for a document may be downloaded and displayed on the user'scomputer in response to the user selecting a link 540 to a legitimacyrating document 600. In other embodiments, a user selection of thedocument shown in FIG. 5A may cause the server to provide the legitimacyinformation shown in FIG. 5B.

It should be appreciated that the legitimacy information may be providedto the user's computer before it is displayed to the user. For instance,in some embodiments the legitimacy information may be stored in atemporary Internet file (or cookie, etc.), and then the legitimacyinformation may be displayed once the user selects the document bymousing over or clicking on it. In some embodiments, the legitimacyinformation may be a part of the document itself, such as in 410 and500B.

It will be appreciated to those skilled in the art that the actsdescribed above may be performed by hardware, software, or a combinationthereof, with or without human intervention, as may be embodied in oneor more computing systems such as a server 2 system coupled to entitiessuch as providers and end users. Further, it should be appreciated thatnot all of the blocks must be accomplished. For instance, in oneembodiment, the method may begin at block 340 and end at block 380.Also, it is not necessary that the action(s) of each block be performedin the order shown in FIG. 3. Any order of performance may beconsidered.

Illustrative User Interface and Results

FIG. 4 shows an exemplary documents 400, 430, 440 according to anembodiment of the invention. FIG. 4 depicts an exemplary web page 400search result from an Internet search engine comprising a search query410, search results 420 (e.g., comprising legitimacy information 420A),an advertisement 430 comprising legitimacy information 430A, and otheradvertisements 440. The advertisements 430, 440 may comprise a bannerad, another ad that can be displayed on a web page, or another graphicalor text advertisement that can be displayed via electronic means.

It should be noted that the web page 400 itself may be a document, andthe advertisements 430, 440, search results 420, and other content onthe page 400 may also be documents for purposes of various embodiments.Although advertisements 430, 440 and search results 420 are shown inFIG. 4, other types of documents may be considered, such as pop-ups,files, programs, and other information. The documents 400, 430 may havevarious types of content. For instance, the document may have words,images, sounds, and other information, as well as functions or programswhich may dynamically produce words, images, sounds, and otherinformation.

Here, the keyword search query 410 “best movies of 2004” may returnsearch results 420 as well as advertisements 430, 440 related to thesearch query 410. For instance, server 2 may comprise a search enginethat returns search results 420 and advertisements 430, 440 that arerelated (e.g., by subject matter) to the search query 410. Theadvertisements may be ordered on the right side of the document based ontheir relevance to the search query as well as a bid on specifickeywords. The advertisement 430 may be for the a company calledwww.StockUpFilms.biz, and the advertisement 430 may be in the topadvertisement position because its associated content source (e.g., thecompany www.StockUpFilms.biz) bid a high amount on the keywords “movies2004.”

Legitimacy information 430A may comprise volume and/or historyinformation related to the source of the advertisement (e.g., an entitywho created the document, instructed to have the document published, oran entity otherwise associated with the document). For example,legitimacy information 430A may indicate one or more of the following,for example: that the advertiser (or other associated content source)has had a relationship with the search engine since Dec. 7, 2002; thatthis advertisement (or other advertisements from this advertiser) havebeen selected by users a total of 321 times; and that a total of $2157of goods have been sold to the users who clicked on the ad.

Legitimacy information may also be indicated in the document in otherways. For instance, the bottom portion of the document showing thelegitimacy information 430A (or the legitimacy information itself, suchas a dollar amount) may be colored gold to indicate that the advertiseris a highly rated “gold” member, while other advertisers may have otherassociated colors such as bronze or platinum to indicate a lower orhigher rating, respectively. Different pieces of legitimacy informationmay have different associated colors. For instance, a new advertiserwith a high user transaction volume may have “bronze” (e.g., relativelyweak) history information but and “platinum” (superior) volumeinformation, indicated by colors or labels associated with suchinformation. In other embodiments, a sound file such as a voice clip mayprovide an audio indication of the legitimacy information, such as bystating “321 user selections” or “www.StockUpFilms.biz is a bronzeadvertiser.”

Here, the legitimacy information 430A may also comprise a link for usersto provide feedback about the advertisement or advertiser (or documentor other content source). Although not shown in FIG. 4, the otheradvertisements 440 may also comprise similar legitimacy information fortheir respective content sources.

FIGS. 5A and 5B depict exemplary documents 500A and 500B for whichlegitimacy rating information may be provided according to an embodimentof the invention. The documents 500A and 500B may comprise a feedbacklink 510 and advertiser link 550. Document 500B may also compriselegitimacy information 520, 530 and a legitimacy link 540 that links toadditional volume and/or history information (e.g., a link to thedocument shown in FIG. 6). The documents 500A and 500B may be comprisedin a web page, such as in the search result page shown in FIG. 4.

Here, documents 500A and 500B are advertisements, although the documents500A and 500B may be any type of document, such as an email, web page,pop-up, graphic, search result, or other document. FIG. 5A shows adocument 500A being displayed without explicit legitimacy ratinginformation, and FIG. 5B shows the same (or similar) document 500Bshowing explicit legitimacy rating information including historyinformation 520 and volume information 530.

The document 500A in FIG. 5A may contain embedded volume and historyinformation that is displayed when the document is selected by a user,such as when a user mouses over the document 500A, right-clicks on thedocument, or otherwise selects the document.

The feedback link 510 may enable users to provide feedback informationabout a document or associated content source, as described elsewhereherein.

The advertiser link 550 may comprise a link to another document, such asthe web page URL of the advertiser (e.g., or content provider or contentsource). For instance, the advertiser link 550 may comprise an embeddedhypertext link, and the embedded link may be associated with theadvertiser link 550 displayed in the image of the document 500A, 500B.In some embodiments, selecting (e.g., clicking on) the displayed URL orother link 550 while viewing the documents 500A, 500B (e.g., in a webbrowser) may direct the viewer's mechanism for viewing documents (e.g.,web browser) to the content associated with the link (e.g., theadvertiser's web page).

The documents 500A, 500B may explicitly display the advertiser link 550.Also, the advertiser link 550 may be embedded in the document (e.g., inthe programming of the document) or a portion thereof such that the link550 is not visible. Here, selecting (e.g., clicking on) the documents500A, 500B may direct a user's document viewing mechanism to the linkeddocument(s). The document 500A, 500B may also comprise one or moreadditional links. For instance, an ad that advertises a plurality ofproducts may comprise a link for each product, wherein selecting (e.g.,clicking on) an image, icon, or text in the document 500A or 500Brelating to a specific product (or other content) may direct a webbrowser (or other document viewing mechanism) to a page at a merchant'ssite associated with the specific product (or to another document). Itshould be appreciated that in such embodiments, the document may display(or enable the display) of separate (or combined) legitimacy informationfor each separate product or link.

FIG. 6 depicts a document 600 comprising an exemplary detailed view of alegitimacy rating according to an embodiment of the invention. Document600 may be accessed by selecting a link in another document, such aslegitimacy link 540 in document 500B. Document 600 may also be passed tothe user in response to a user selecting another document, e.g., bymousing over (or right clicking on or otherwise selecting) document 500Aor 500B.

The legitimacy information may comprise volume information, historyinformation, and user rating information, such as aggregate ratinginformation. The legitimacy information may be determined and aggregatedby volume module 20, history module 22, user rating module 26, sourcecomparison module 28, and rating aggregation module 30.

As shown in FIG. 6, legitimacy information may comprise one or more ofthe following information concerning an exemplary advertiser and/oradvertisement document, for example: a rating of its transaction volumecompared to the transaction volume of comparison advertisers (e.g.,advertisers in the same industry, advertisers who bid on the same orsimilar keywords, or other advertisers determined to be similarlysituated advertisers); a rating of its transaction volume compared toall advertisers (or all content sources of a particular type); thenumber of times a user has selected the document; the number of times auser made a purchase from the content source after selecting thedocument; a ratio of the number of user clicks to user purchases; arating of this ratio compared to comparison advertisers (or all contentsources of a particular type); the amount of the average buyer purchase;the total value of goods purchased from the advertiser as a result ofselecting the advertisement; the amount paid by the advertiser to theadvertisement distributor who passed the advertisement to users; thedate or length of time the document provider first provided theadvertisement (or any advertisement from the advertiser) to a user (orthe date the advertiser first engaged in a relationship with thedocument provider); a rating of this length of time compared tocomparison advertisers (or all advertisers); the date (or length oftime) when the advertisement (or the advertiser's advertisementsgenerally speaking) were selected a certain number of times; the numberof rating users; a user approval score, such as a percentage of ratingusers who approve of the advertiser (e.g., within a certain period oftime); the industry of the advertiser (or other identifying informationabout the advertiser, such as an identification of the keywords bid);industries for which users have approved the advertiser; geographicalareas associated with the advertiser (e.g., locations where theadvertisement has been published to users, or the location of theadvertiser's headquarters); number or percentage of user complaints;status with the document provider (e.g., whether the content source isapproved by the document provider); and/or appropriateness ratings alonga variety of criteria.

It should be understood that the server, processors, and modulesdescribed herein may perform their functions (e.g., reading opticalinformation or determining rating information) automatically or via anautomated system. As used herein, the term “automatically” refers to anaction being performed by any machine-executable process, e.g., aprocess that does not require human intervention or input.

The embodiments of the present inventions are not to be limited in scopeby the specific embodiments described herein. For example, although manyof the embodiments disclosed herein have been described with referenceto advertisements, the principles herein are equally applicable to otherdocuments and content. Indeed, various modifications of the embodimentsof the present inventions, in addition to those described herein, willbe apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art from the foregoingdescription and accompanying drawings. Thus, such modifications areintended to fall within the scope of the following appended claims.Further, although some of the embodiments of the present invention havebeen described herein in the context of a particular implementation in aparticular environment for a particular purpose, those of ordinary skillin the art will recognize that its usefulness is not limited thereto andthat the embodiments of the present inventions can be beneficiallyimplemented in any number of environments for any number of purposes.Accordingly, the claims set forth below should be construed in view ofthe full breath and spirit of the embodiments of the present inventionsas disclosed herein.

1. A computer-implemented method for providing a legitimacy rating of acontent source, comprising: receiving a request for a document; passingan electronic document by a document provider based on the request,wherein the electronic document is associated with a content source; andproviding a legitimacy rating of the content source.
 2. The method ofclaim 1, wherein the legitimacy rating comprises a history rating of thecontent source based on the length of time the document provider haspublished documents associated with the content source.
 3. The method ofclaim 1, wherein the legitimacy rating comprises a transaction volumerating of the content source based on the number of electronic documentsassociated with the content source that are passed by the documentprovider.
 4. The method of claim 1, wherein the request comprises arequest for a document associated with a concept, and wherein theelectronic document is selected based on a relevance to the concept. 5.The method of claim 1, wherein the electronic document is output on acomputer display device of a user, and wherein the legitimacy rating isprovided in response to a user action.
 6. The method of claim 1, whereinthe electronic document is output on a computer display device of auser, and wherein the legitimacy rating is provided in response to atleast one of the user moving a cursor over at least a portion of theelectronic document and the user right-clicking on the document.
 7. Themethod of claim 1, wherein the legitimacy rating further comprises ametric based on the number of documents associated with the contentsource that have been provided by the document provider.
 8. The methodof claim 1, wherein the document is an advertisement, and wherein thecontent source is an advertiser.
 9. The method of claim 1, wherein thedocument is a search result, and wherein the content source is a websitethat is linked in the search result.
 10. The method of claim 1, whereinthe electronic document comprises a link to a legitimacy ratingdocument, wherein the legitimacy rating document comprises additionallegitimacy rating information.
 11. The method of claim 10, wherein theadditional legitimacy rating information comprises a metriccorresponding to a dollar amount paid by the content source to thedocument provider for publishing documents associated with the contentsource.
 12. The method of claim 10, wherein the additional legitimacyrating information comprises a metric corresponding to a number of userswho have provided negative feedback about the content source.
 13. Themethod of claim 10, wherein the additional legitimacy rating informationcomprises a metric corresponding to a user approval rating of thecontent source.
 14. The method of claim 10, wherein the additionallegitimacy rating information comprises a metric corresponding to thedocument provider's approval rating of the content source.
 15. Themethod of claim 1, wherein at least one of the history rating and thetransaction volume rating comprises a metric that is normalized based onat least one of history ratings and transaction volume ratings of aplurality of content sources who provide documents to the documentprovider.
 16. The method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the historyrating and the transaction volume rating comprises a metric that isnormalized based on at least one of history ratings and transactionvolume ratings of a subset of content sources who provide documents tothe document provider, wherein the subset of content sources areselected based on a similarity to the content source.
 17. The method ofclaim 1, wherein the legitimacy rating further comprises an aggregateuser rating of the document provider.
 18. The method of claim 1, whereinthe act of providing the legitimacy rating comprises: causing thelegitimacy rating to be displayed to a user in response to a userselecting the electronic document.
 19. A system for providing alegitimacy rating of a content source, comprising: an input device forreceiving a request for a document; an output device for: passing anelectronic document by a document provider in response to the request,wherein the electronic document is associated with a content source; andand providing a legitimacy rating of the content source; and a processorfor determining the legitimacy rating of the content source based on atleast one of transaction and history information associated with thecontent source.
 20. A computer-implemented method for providing alegitimacy rating of a content source, comprising: receiving from a usera request for a document associated with a criteria; selecting anelectronic advertisement based on a relevance to the criteria, whereinthe electronic advertisement is associated with an advertiser; passingthe electronic advertisement to the user by a document provider inresponse to the request; and providing to the user a legitimacy ratingof the advertiser, wherein the legitimacy rating comprises at least oneof: a history rating of the advertiser based on the length of time thedocument provider has published electronic advertisements associatedwith the advertiser; and a transaction volume rating of the advertiserbased on the number of electronic advertisements associated with theadvertiser that are passed to users by the document provider.
 21. Asystem for providing a legitimacy rating of a content source,comprising: an input device for receiving from a user a request for adocument associated with a criteria; a processor for selecting anelectronic advertisement based on a relevance to the criteria, whereinthe electronic advertisement is associated with an advertiser; and anoutput device of a document provider for: passing the electronicadvertisement to the user in response to the request; and providing tothe user a legitimacy rating of the advertiser, wherein the legitimacyrating comprises at least one of: a history rating of the advertiserbased on the length of time the document provider has publishedelectronic advertisements associated with the advertiser; and atransaction volume rating of the advertiser based on the number ofelectronic advertisements associated with the advertiser that are passedto users by the document provider.
 22. A computer-implemented method forproviding a legitimacy rating of a content source, comprising: receivingfrom a user a request for a document associated with a concept;selecting an electronic document associated with a content source basedon a relevance to the concept; determining a legitimacy rating of thecontent source, wherein the legitimacy rating comprises at least one of:a history rating of the content source based on the length of time thedocument provider has published documents associated with the contentsource; and a transaction volume rating of the content source based onthe number of electronic documents associated with the content sourcethat are passed to users by the document provider; and passing theelectronic document and the legitimacy rating together in a singletransmission to the user in response to the request.
 23. A system forproviding a legitimacy rating of a content source, comprising: an inputdevice for receiving from a user a request for a document associatedwith a concept; a selection processor of a document provider forselecting an electronic document associated with a content source basedon a relevance to the concept; a legitimacy rating processor fordetermining a legitimacy rating of the content source, wherein thelegitimacy rating comprises at least one of: a history rating of thecontent source based on the length of time the document provider haspublished documents associated with the content source; and atransaction volume rating of the content source based on the number ofelectronic documents associated with the content source that are passedto users by the document provider; and an output device for passing theelectronic document and the legitimacy rating together in a singletransmission to the user in response to the request.